Comments

Paul JM: Fantastic looking piece of kit. Would be nice to hear some hands on experience so we can hear how well it works in the field, but for the naysayers below, if you dont like the look, or think that the look of the gear is irrelevant, then dont read the article, go take some photos, and cease whinging on these forums. If a manufacturer has taken the time to make their gear aesthetically pleasing, then good on them. I spend hours drooling over the craftsmanship of my combination of a gitzo CF tripod and ArcaSwiss head, and dont feel guilty about it for a moment. I was under the impression that photography was all about aesthetics, well certainly in the shots. Nothing to feel guilty about wanting great looking gear

As I said, surely their sales figures will tell them people like it, they won't tell them why they don't like it.

Paul JM: Fantastic looking piece of kit. Would be nice to hear some hands on experience so we can hear how well it works in the field, but for the naysayers below, if you dont like the look, or think that the look of the gear is irrelevant, then dont read the article, go take some photos, and cease whinging on these forums. If a manufacturer has taken the time to make their gear aesthetically pleasing, then good on them. I spend hours drooling over the craftsmanship of my combination of a gitzo CF tripod and ArcaSwiss head, and dont feel guilty about it for a moment. I was under the impression that photography was all about aesthetics, well certainly in the shots. Nothing to feel guilty about wanting great looking gear

I think it is quite valid to post a comment where you dislike something.It will give manufactures a more balanced indication of what people want rather than relying purely n sales figures.Personally I don't like anything retro, it just looks old and naff. But I understand why some folks will like it.

Tiderace: I am a research methodologist. There is a problem with the validity of the test. The glass is supported by a very narrow circular steel hollow rod beneath the filter. Yes, this produced the result seen. However, the test should have been done with the outside filter ring being supported NOT the center of the glass. This would represent real life validity of impact to filters not the test dynamics. The results might be similar, however, this is speculation only. Impact resistance has many variables including deformity, elasticity, and so on. Sigma may know this, and this is why they did not show us such a test. I find myself healthily wary of this test and its results and its generalizability to real world ability. Why did they not choose the test that would have been obvious, i.e., support of the filter by the circumference of the filter? If I am wrong, I will be glad to consider buying one.

I don't see the validity of this test myself.Conventional glass is more flexible and failed in this application because it could not flex enough. If the surface area were bigger it is entirely possible it would pass. Imagine jumping on a trampoline.I do get involved with imapact testing of glass and many other materials and the only way to know if something is going to be any good is to test it as it will be used in the real world.That asside its a damn site cheaper to have lens insurrance than buy a few of these.

timo: I'm a bit shocked by these samples - there seems to be a lot of noise even at low ISOs, and the sharpness across the frame looks terrible in some of them. When I picked up the camera in a shop recently I was quite tempted. Not now.

I too understand all the meanings behind noise but it makes me laugh when you buy a camera with a shed load of pixels but you can't actually use all of them.20MP is twice 10MP but in reality it's probably 15MP when you consider noise unless your shooting at the base ISO, get the exposure perfect and there are no shady areas to show it off.

Ashley Pomeroy: One day a major photojournalism prize is going to be won by a chap who held his iPhone over his head and clicked the shutter two dozen times, without knowing what he was shooting; the images were selected by the phone's app and transmitted directly to the picture desk. It'll raise all kinds of issues.

I get tired of reading about "Professional" cameras and photographers. Theres way too much snobbery. Professional just means you get paid for doing it. So if you get paid for your iPhone photo your a professional.And just because your a professional doesn't mean your any good.Digital photography has made life more difficult for the "Professional" but hard cheese. Lifes tough these days for all professions. So either live with it or get another job.